Thread: World War Three

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Two questions. One, do you think that the methods that the Russian's used can be effectively employed by anything other than their first line divisions (even during the Soviet Union's heyday, only a very small number of the 40 divisions on the Sino-Russian border were 1st line)?

Wrong! All of them were in 1970-73 when the Soviets were preparing for a nuclear supported armoured strike across to Lop Nor.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

And second, what makes you think that, regardless of each side's intentions, the war will be short? Russia hardly possesses the ability to conquer China, and while I think that China can take a good chunk of Siberia away from Russia, it is hardly realistic to think that the Chinese could ever get anywhere near the Urals.

It is EXTREMELY unrealistic to think China could take any chunk of Siberia. They only have two good corps (the 38th and 39th Group Armies) that could realistically fight the Russians. This basically means that they have only 3 engineering regiments to march across Siberia. 3 engr regts to support 2 corps? Not likely.

Not only that, the Chinese doctrine, the War Zone Campaign effectively limits any military operation 100 miles from China's borders. By Siberian definitions, that's one ice field to another. In the mean time, you've got 14 Russian divisions backed by 20 guns brigades that would make mince meat out of the 38 and 39GAs. If there is one thing the Russians do better than anybody else on earth is artillery.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Even if China does not seize Siberia, it would be political suicide for the Chinese leadership that started the said war to admit defeat (and being driven from Siberia would be a great defeat), and therefore a fuller mobilization could easily occur by a political leadership that knows it can win a longer struggle.

That is where you're completely wrong. The Chinese NEVER viewed a military victory as priority in any military action. The political aspects are far more important to them. To them, a military defeat means squat. It's the political gains that they're after.

Cases in point.

The Korean War. It was an operational disaster for the Chinese. They surrounded the 8th Army 5 times and 5 times, they've failed to kill the 8th Army and sufferring intolerable casualties at the same time. Yet, they claim victory for driving the Americans out of North Korea all the while that was not their aim. They wanted to kill the 8th Army and failed.

The 62 Sino-Indo War. They initially over-ran Indian positions but overstretched and overconsumed their LoCs. They ran back to their lines, abandonning all their gains because they were bingo food, water, and ammo. However, they claimed to have won the 62 Sino-Indo War.

The Sino-Soviet Clashes reached a point where the Chinese crossed over into official Soviet territory and engaged in a battalion size ambush. They have bloodied the Soviet's nose and demonstrated to the world that it is the Chinese, not the Soviets who were the better communist leaders, having the vision to do what's right. Next couple of years, they retreated 100 miles away from the border.

And the most famous 79 Sino-Vietnam War. The Chinese were bloodied beyond expectations and was chased back to their borders by the Vietnamese. Yet, the Chinese claimed to have achieved all their OPOBJ (they did but it was a nightmare of an op) and demonstrated again Soviet inability to take on the Chinese (chanaged their minds real fast after Afghanistan).

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

The scenario that I see as being most likely is China securing large sections of Siberia after using brute force and numbers to defeat the Russian army, which will be tied to rail lines and supply depots (any mechanized army must live off of these). After this, a new front is formed facing whatever portion of the trans-Siberian railway that Russia manages to hold, and a long term stalemate ensues.

The Chinese are no better off in surviving in Siberia than the Russians are. Again, the Chinese have nothing that could withstand a Russian Guards Army. If the Chinese wants to throw numbers, the Russians will obliged. Their usage of artillery in Chechnya surpasses anything even we use.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Also, one advantage that the Chinese have over the Russians in this respect is that while the Russian's are more capable of manuever warfare (I fully agree with you that Russian doctrine is far more flexable), they are also tied to fairly fixed objectives. The Russians must stay near rail lines and cities, all along a long border that can be cut at any spot. There are relatively few roads, and much wilderness that makes supplying a modern army away from existing infrastructure excessively difficult. Therefore Russia must fight for fixed objectives, and China's mass will then become quite effective.

The Chinese are also extremely fixed in their objectives. In fact, they have far less operational experience than the Russians do. No Russian General would have ever tolerate the cluster****ed op of the 79 Sino-VN War.

If you're talking 1979 onward to the USSR collapsed, yes, those divisions were retained at Class C status. Currently, the Russians are maintaining 14 divisions in the Far East of which 6 are always at full strength. The others are at regiment strength. Even still, the 38 and 39GAs only have 7 divisions between them.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

At the small unit level, the Germans were far better than the Russians in WWII, but that didn't stop the Soviets from decisively defeating the German army on the strategic level on several occasions (Operation Bagration, Stalingrad, Kursk, ect). If a nation has a major strategic advantage in numbers and postion (the Chinese have both, with the advantage of interior lines in Manchuria), then it is hardly unrealistic for them to emerge victorious even losing solders at a rate of four or five to one tactically.

Several points. The Germans nearly won all those fights, especially at Kursk. They nearly rolled up the entire Russian line.

The terrain in question is flatland. Internal LoCs mean squat.

Both the Chinese and the Russians do not resupply their units. They get rebuilt. They fight until exhausted, step aside and let a fresh army take their place, and wait for their turn to go back to the rear for fresh men and materials.

Lastly, modern warfare is not attrition warfare. We no longer need to kill every man in an enemy army. We just need to kill those that would render the entire army ineffective and that usually means killing the reserves. The Soviets call this the Deep Battle and the Chinese is trying to copy it in their WZC.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

True, but these battles were, as you said, bloody stalemates. While the Chinese failed to achieve their objectives, they could also claim victory because the outcomes were hardly decisive.

No, they were decisive - against the Chinese.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Any war in Siberia would involve vast distances by sheer necessity, as the Russian army lacks the numbers to stop the Chinese at the border (there being too much border to cover).

The same with the Chinese. The majority of their forces are 100 miles away from the border.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

As such any outcomes, one way or the other, are likely to be decisive, and it would be difficult to pass off the deaths of a few hundred thousand men without any territory to show for it as a victory.

It would not be a few hundred thousand men. At best, only two corps would be involved and that's 60,000 men. By their standard calculation, those divisions can tolerate up to 50% casualties before they're combat ineffective and that is 30,000 casualties.

They sufferred far more than that in Korea and in 79 Sino-VN War, and they did not hold any territory.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

These were also minor clashes, relatively speaking. China never fully committed it's resources to any conflict here except Korea, and Korea was definately a stalemate (which theoretically, both sides can call a victory). It is easy to say that you won a border clash where a few thousand men died (or even a pyrric victory in Vietnam and a bloody stalemate in Korea). It is another to claim victory after the majority of your modern army has been annihilated, without any gain to show for it.

200,000 men in 79 Sino-VN War is a minor clash? However, you're missing the point. The point is a political victory. In the WZC scenario, the Chinese would bloodied a few noses and then run away before a replacement army would come seeking vengence. Which is exactly what happenned in all of China's Wars.

In Korea, Eisenhower threatened nukes. The Chinese negotiated.

In 62 Sino-Indo War, the Indian Army mobilized, the Chinese ran home before the Indian Army could exact revenge.

Sino-Soviet Clashes, the Chinese retreated 100 miles away from their borders, not giving the Soviets any chance at their avenging humalition at losing a battalion level engagement.

79 Sino-VN. The Chinese gone home long before the Vietnamese could mount a counter-attack.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I agree with your last point, but when referring to supply, I was talking about fuel and ammunition. Every army needs to be resupplied with it, and even Soviet doctrine provides for resupplying formations with fuel and ammo while in the field. And internal LoC's are very important for choosing the time and place of battle. The sheer distances involved means that moving units across the theater requires rail transport, and whoever can do that the fastest can gain an advantage of mass at the decisive point.

You're not understanding. Both Chinese and Soviet formations do not get resupplied. They get rebuilt. There is a difference. The problem with flat terrain is that it is a recee's dream. You will be seen alot earlier than you can see and the same goes with your LoCs. That essentially restrict your convoys to being escourted at the battalion level.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

it never had a chance during Operation Bagration. Army Group Center was completely destroyed, as it was trying to hold the entire front without operational reserves. Given the restrictions placed upon them (staying in "hedgehogs"), Germany never had a chance in that battle.

Must be old age, didn't see Bagration in your post.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Hey OoE, I would be happy to debate this further later on, but I've got a ruck march tomorrow and need to get my ruck packed. I was wondering though, could you give me some links to good sites regarding current Russian capabilities? I've got a few, but there are a lot of discrepencies and disagreements as to how combat ready the Russian armed forces are, especially their army.

Come back when you're ready. I'll compile a few for you.